$675,000-a-month condos?

Wow, rents are really getting crazy!

That copay is outrageous, but how does a person with a full-time job in a low cost-of-living state not having $100 in savings?

She may have had the money, but decided not to pay that much for what she hoped was a benign flu.

So what are the rule(z) for vehicles on the Burke-Gilman trail now? Once upon a time it was "no non-human powered vehicles". You're not keeping electric bikes off of it, right? So electric motorcycles are ok too? Wait, is that an internal combustion motorcycle??, perhaps it's a hybrid [shrug]. Sure a good thing the trail was graded for the railway or else it might become a slippery slope.

I suspect she also made the personal decision to forego treatment for a flu that has been widely known to be quite fatal this season. It's sad, but people have the right to die. That's why we have anti-vaxxers.

Regarding that flu case, what antibiotic is that expensive?

Any antibiotic that would be that expensive is likely one that is specially formulated for people with other medical issues, such as diabetes. Often these antibiotics have to be made with special ingredients to lower their toxicity. The cephalosporin family of antibiotics is such an example. Zyvox (the brand name for the antibiotic linezolid) would be another.

If not that, then she has purchased an extremely bad, and possibly illegal health insurance policy, which is more common than you may think.

These kiddies are really going find out the hard way what a Breaking and Entering charge does for you. Retailers love it when they find criminals hiding in their shops. Especially when the excuse is 'the internet told me to do it!'

@11:

Doesn't a B&E charge require actual "breaking AND entering"? If you don't use some measurable amount of force to enter the premises, AND do not exhibit intent to commit some other crime, such as burglary or vandalism, why would this be considered B&E (a felony) and not simple misdemeanor trespass?

@9 - Thx. I need to do the Seattle Times paywall.

It was a prescription for an antiviral. She initially balked at the price but her husband bought it for her and she took it. She died anyway.

Don't mess around with the flu.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-teach…

What kind of dick turns the conversation to "did this person choose the least bad choice in a shitty dilemma" and avoids thinking about "why was she in this position"?

Republicans are terrible people.

@15:

But, the second part of 9A.52.040 provides a notable exception to the "inferred intent" provision of the first part. Thus, if such an explanation is forthcoming, and if the evidence presented can support the claim, then it wouldn't meet the criteria for a felony charge. For example: if there is no evidence of physical damage to the property or its contents, no evidence of any contents being moved from their original locations, and no evidence of an attempt to leave the premises with any goods in-hand, etc., etc., when it can be established the accused had sufficient time to do so (and which would certainly appear to be the case in these examples as submitted), then a good defense attorney shouldn't have too much trouble arguing for the exception.

It would seem both an inappropriately strict application of the RCW, in addition to defying simple common sense, to charge a couple of teenagers with a felony, simply for exhibiting the poor judgement of deciding to spend the night in a pool of toddler-slobbered bouncy balls, or inside a cramped IKEA display closet. I mean, I get that you "no mercy/throw-the-book-at-them" law-and-order types just love exacting the absolute highest level of punitive damages for even the most trivial infractions, but then that's why exceptions such as those cited in the RCW exist in the first place; to ensure (for the most part) that the punishment actually does fit the crime, which, in this case is pretty insignificant compared to actual criminal activity.

Hotel: I have no problem knocking down the 131-yo Hahn Bldg. It's brick. It's deadly in a 'quake. It's gotta go.

Now replacing it with a hotel I have issues with.
-- 14-stories, no problem, shit's gotta go up, we have finite land.
-- And I don't care about blocking the "condo owners' views". Them's the breaks, kids. Thought your unbelievable Elliot Bay views, smack-dab edge of downtown, over-viewing a 4-story brick-builing, in a major earthquake zone, were going to last forever? Didn't do your homework or think that through very well, did you. Oops. Shoulda sold your condo to suckers last year.

But...
¿ Will they keep the retail that's currently on the ground level ? If so, that's better.
¿ Will the success of the hotel be heavily influenced by the 40-story Hilton that will be completed this year, some 6-8 blocks away?
¿ The City should be able to enforce an architectural aesthetic on the new structure, so that it appropriately matches the nearby buildings, and retains an "old Seattle" feel, Right? Paris does it. That corner is a major tourist attraction --(despite the hyper-garish "Dreamgirls" marquee conforming to any sort of aesthetic coherence of the 1st&Pike intersection...)-- make it match the Pike Place Market/ "Old Seattle", or don't make it at all.

Harrumph!